George Eliot: The Mill on the Floss

I am agog; simply agog. I knew that this book was a special one when I couldn't put it down and tried to read it while walking (something that never ends well). I even went further, and tried to read it during my workout, holding it as I did sit-ups. Eliot succeeded as she never did in other books in creating true suspense; I was terrified for Maggie that she might choose Charles, completely believing that she could choose either path. So real and three-dimensional were Eliot's characters that I not only was invested in their choices, but really was unsure what their choices would be. I simply couldn't put it down, something that has been true of only one other book in my adult life: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card.

Which was not the only similarity between my reactions to those two books. Ender's Game left me weeping longingly due to its resonance with my particular childhood. The Mill on the Floss, as I read the very last pages, left me not only weeping but wracked with sobs, gasping for purchase. I have never reacted that way to a book, and I have read many.

Perhaps it is a function of my current vulnerability, or the lovely scenery around me as I read it, or the happiness that comes with having smoked a few cigarettes, but to be sure it is largely attributable to Eliot's skill as a writer. She has always been amond my favorites, and on occasion has topped the list. In this instance, however, she has outdone herself. The Mill on the Floss is a book out of time, one that defies prediction in a way that her contemporaries would surely covet. Telling without being didactic, wise without being self-important, colorful and scenic without being florid, and touching without being pathetic. It is-and I do not say this lightly, as any follower (of which there are none, I am sure) of this blog will know--one of the best books ever written.

Boris Pasternak: Doctor Zhivago

This is the first novel in a while that I have allowed myself to simply enjoy, to--as Barthes would put it--be seduced by, to simply read and fall in love with. This is partly due to my frame of mind, I suppose. My mantra lately has been "this moment is just as beautiful as any there has ever been," by which I mean that each moment is possessed of infinite small beauties and happinesses, and he is a fool who fails to see them. This sentiment naturally put me in compliance with Pasternak's novel, which is almost more of a painting than a book, so seamlessly does one beautiful picture morph into and meld with the next.

The English Major is incorrigible, of course, and refuses to be entirely dormant, so I naturally have a dissertation's worth to say about theme, style and especially Pasternak's uniquely charming use of pathetic fallacy. I will limit myself, however, to the observation that each of the characters is chasing, in her or his own way, that elusive divine light for which we all search. For some, the light is found, for some not. For Yurii, most tragically, the light is found--in Lara, who seems to hold it within herself--and lost. He holds onto it only long enough to write it down, and then withers away for want of it. All of this is supported and elaborated upon with one beautiful passage after another, but I'll save it for grad school. Suffice it to say that I have been successfully "cruised" by Doctor Zhivago (thanks Barthes) and now need a cigarette.

BTD 16

Joseph Conrad: The Secret Agent

Early in this short novel, Conrad describes what, for lack of a more accurate term, we may call his protagonist as "constitutionally averse to every superfluous exertion" (9). As I continued to read, I seldom went a page without wishing that Conrad, or at least his narrator, had the same tendency. This book needed Strunk and White to take a chisel to it, and winnow it down by half. Let's select a random page and see if I can't find you a good example, shall we? Here's one from page 49:

He walked with the nerveless gait of a tramp going on, still going on, indifferent to rain or sun in a sinister detachment from the aspects of sky and earth. Chief inspector Heat, on the other hand, after watching him a while, stepped out with the purposeful briskness of a man disregarding indeed the inclemencies of the weather, but conscious of having an authorized mission on this earth and the moral support of his kind.

Belch. The passage, as a microcosm of the entire book, overflows with "superfluous exertion". This is only two sentences, mind you. Can't you see Mark Twain spinning in his grave, perhaps wishing he were a lathe upon which to shear down Conrad's pointlessly flowery tone?

Whatever the flaws of this particular book, however, Conrad is still canonical for a reason. Even in the midst of all this diarrhoea, he manages to reach a mental study that would have merited Dostoevsky's admiration. When he confines his love of detail solely to the inner workings of his characters, he shines. Just as his "superfluous effort" is in startling contrast to Mr. Verloc's hatred of the same, so does his conscientious probity of his characters' minds stand in contrast to Mrs. Verloc's "belief that things did not stand being looked into" (89). Now that I mention it, perhaps he needn't be chastised quite so rashly for his loquacity after all . . .
 

Francois Marie Arouet: Zadig and L'Ingenu

As fairly enjoyable as these two tales were, their chief interest to me was as reflections of that better known of Voltaire's works, Candide. Zadig, written at at the beginning of his career, and L'Ingenu, written at the end, create a sandwich of sorts, that I'm sure has been written about consistently. Unlike Candide, which seems to rotate around external circumstances, these two stories pivot on the title characters themselves. Where Candide is simpleminded, some might even say a caricature, both Zadig and Hercules, the so-called Ingenu, are noble, sophisticated, caricatures in their own way.

These relatively flat characters could cause one to assume that Voltaire is not in earnest, that the stories are cheeky or satirical--and this is the customary approach to Candide especially. My personal affection for Candide lies in my belief that Voltaire secretly meant it in earnest, that for all the scorn he heaped upon Pangloss, this really is the best of all possible worlds, and our only choice is to be content in it. With this perspective on Candide, it is only natural to wonder if the other two stand up to the same literal lens. In Zadig, Voltaire seems to earnestly believe that all is for the best, that whatever terrible thing happens there is some greater good behind it. By the time of Candide, he has clearly altered his view somewhat, but only insofar as to remove God from the equation. Where in Zadig we should accept the terrible in life because it leads to the good, in Candide we should accept it because there is no better alternative. This puts him on a rather cynical trajectory, and sure enough, by the time of L'Ingenu the terrible in life doesn't give rise to any particular philosophy, and the book ends with a flat thud where one has come to expect something rather more pithy--both in Voltaire, and in literature generally

Reiner Kunze: The Lovely Years

Many thanks, once again, to Philip Ward for setting me on the track of this remarkable author. This book possessed every virtue that I normally look for in a book--layered, metaliterary, resonant and epigrammatic, to name a few--and one that I don't normally look for, that of brevity. In form and texture, the book was very Joyceian. It's simply a collection of vignettes, some startlingly short, that serve to convey the feel of East Germany and Czechoslovakia during the cold war. Often, Kunze uses the perspective of a father observing the maturation of his daughter, and it is these scenes that feel like the center, the pivot of the book. He often returns to this character--which may or may not be the same father--as he treads the line between wanting the daughter to escape youth unscathed, and wanting her to think honestly about the political situation. the daughter, of course, chooses her own path as the father watches helplessly.

When not in this mode, Kunze often adopts the character of a publisher visiting Czechoslovakia as tensions over the partially East German invasion mount. Through him, Kunze introduces a string of obscure Czech poetry. At first I thought he might be pulling the Borgesian move of writing poems in the voice of a fictional writer, but research revealed that the writers were real, and this makes Kunze's choice decidedly more political than Borges'.

Peppered among these narratives are seemingly unconnected glimpses into the lives of others affected by Cold War politics in the countries of the Warsaw Pact. The narrator of these scenes usually is anonymous, which makes it only natural to hear them in Kunze's own voice. The arrangement of the stories is fluid, rhythmic, almost musical in its artistry.

Which brings us to the element which sets the book in an entirely different bracket. I always train my students to look for the things that don't fit, and trust the writer that they are often the keys to the entire book. Kunze does not disappoint. The scene "Organ Recital (Toccata and Fugue)" is set apart by its form-- the paragraphs line up on the left margin. This seemingly insignificant formatting choice cues the reader to look more deeply at this scene than at the others, and is rewarded for that inspection with he revelation that it is really almost an "Easter Wings" style shape poem, a pipe organ spread over four pages.

Although superficially prose, the refrain "all organs--" gives it a poetic rhythm that build as the clause is left dangling, setting in the mind like an unresolved chord. After wondering what the narrator is trying to say about "all organs" for three pages, the reader is rewarded with " . . . should all suddenly burst into sound, sweeping away the lies with which the air is so thick that those striving for honesty can scarcely breathe . . . at least one single time, at least one Wednesday evening" (70). The Lovely Years is that single time, the moment when all pipes of all organs, "those thirty feet tall, and with the highest those measured in inches" let loose a simultaneous blast, and clear the air--if only for an instant (69). The voices of The Lovely Years, window washers, teenagers, soldiers, fathers and others of all flavor, including of no flavor, roar out and "thunderously [dispel] the terror of the spirit" (70). A poignant message, and written with such musical artistry that one must be seduced by it.

Keith L. Pratt: Everlasting Flower

Perhaps I'm just burnt out on reading Korean history after this, my third in as many months. I normally read no history whatsoever, so this certainly represents a saturation bombing. Whatever the reason, I found little to remember about this book, compared to the other two. It felt perfunctory and lacking subtlety. Of the three, I definitely enjoyed Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun the most, although it was also the lengthiest, and the least broad. Perhaps if I had read Everlasting Flower first, I would have enjoyed it more, but after the other two it just felt too fluffy.

The one element that I might have enjoyed if it were done in more detail was the series of photo essays, which were really just glamorized captions. They serviceably set a bit of context onto the narrative, but, like the rest of the book, felt lacking. I think it safe to say that I am done with Korean history for a while.

It's a Wonderful Life

Although they have little in common, I find myself comparing this movie to On the Waterfront in my mind. The latter became known for Brando's virtuoso performance, and the former for it's maudlin sentiment. Nonetheless, in my mind, it is Jimmy Stewart's performance that stands out in my mind, and Brando's pales in comparison. Heresy? Perhaps, but as with most of my heresies, I stand by it.

And, of course, I cried. The movie was beautiful, flawless and I do not wonder that it is so widely considered a classic, or that so many people never tire of it (again, in contrast to Waterfront). I felt a personal resonance (perhaps the source of my praise) with Stewart's character, for he is what I imagine my paternal grandfather to have been like. I did not know Henry Payne well, but this is exactly what I picture, down tot he raging outbursts. I found myself feeling a retroactive sympathy for him, as he was never much of a sympathetic character in life. Both for artistic and sentimental reasons, therefore, I would watch this movie again. I do that so rarely, that you may consider it my version of an Academy Award.

Next up: Sunset Boulevard!

Schindler's List

This movie, number 9 on AFI's list of 100 best American movies, made me think little about movie-making, and much about other things. As for it's place on the list, yes, I suppose I can agree with it. It's lovely at points, but merely serviceable in others, and occasionally lacks vision. It seems safe to say that its power comes largely from its topic and its startling treatment of that topic, rather than its masterfulness.

By which topic, I mean the single most important event of the twentieth century, the systematic mass murder of millions of people. Certainly there have been other genocides and mass murders--including that at Hiroshima, but none to my knowledge has been so mechanical, so calculating as what is commonly but incorrectly called The Holocaust. Any reflective human should take its mention as an opportunity to reflect on her or his own life. Is it really so astonishing? Or is it more astonishing for the ease with which it was perpetrated? Is it out of the realm of possibility to think that such a thing could happen again? By no means. Even the seemingly most liberal, evolved of nations are not immune to the power of group mentality. Even the seemingly most evolved humans are not immune. In Schindler's circumstnace, what would I have done? Would it have been to difficult? Would I have taken a stand? I would like to think so, but I am well aware of my ability to fall in with the thinking of my peers.

Were I to take a stand, and let's assume that I would, I am certain I would go about it differently. If the movie's portrayal is accurate (doubtful), Schindler's personality was ill-suited to the business of fighting. Emotional, impetuous, and occasionally silly, it is a wonder that he wasn't caught and executed long before doing any good. In my capacity as an armchair savior, I picture turning my heart completely off. So you want to rescue a particular person? Tough. One person is not more valuable than another; we are all God's children, of equal value in his eyes, and if would draw attention to our dangerous work, forget it. Mourn heartily. Also, no matter that you are uncomfortable. Suffer and live, or whine and die. Your choice.

The question is, would this work? In life, I care about people's welfare, not their feelings. I will do what is in the common interest, and think what you will. It's not pleasant. Perhaps I could learn a thing from Oskar Schindler. Can one do a large good and still worry about small kindnesses?

On The Waterfront

The natural conversation to come out of an analysis of the AFI's 100 greatest American movies is one about what makes a movie great--but the question is grammatically vague. Is the question what about a movie makes it great? Or what magical thing, in the creation of a movie, results in greatness, in legendary status?

In On the Waterfront, the answer to the first question is obvious. First, and most unanimously, is Brando's performance. It is not my favorite performance of his--which may be Streetcar or Guys and Dolls--but it is a believable and reflective one, with a much-deserved reputation. The answer to the second question, which might be more accurately phrased, "where did the greatness come from?", is clearly the director. Kazan brought sensitivity and subtlety to what could have easily been a maudlin melodrama. His hand is usually invisible, as it usually with directors whose charm lay in their subtlety, but it is the director alone that is responsible for the treatment of the scene where Brando reveals to Eva Marie Saint his role in her brother's death. The power of that scene all lay in the placement of the camera, the sound, the creative way that Kazan makes the audience an outsider to the entire thing. Brando has little power here.

The question, "What makes a movie great?" is only incompletely answered by Waterfront, however. Although there is greatness in a movie, I can't say that I consider it great, in the sense that AFI is meaning. If not an answer, though, that is at least part of an answer: if we don't quite know what makes a movie great--in either sense of the question--at least we know that the presence of greatness is not enough.

Liveblogging the Bible: Romans

1:1 Why is Paul writing this? It seems that he wasn't quite aware of the Roman congregation until he was in Rome--and then never to leave.

1:5 Is he referring to himself in the plural here? Obviously, his audience has not received the gift of apostleship.

1:7 As in many of his live performances, Paul begins with a bit of flattery. Was it common practice to refer to each other as saints? No doubt the word had different connotations, because to refer to someone in earnest this way today would be quite an act of hubris, let alone to refer to oneself this way.

1:11 What sort of gift? Any gift of knowledge could be imparted through a letter, so he must be referring to some more tangible, metaphysical act. Which indicates that physical presence is useful for such a thing, even to Paul.

1:16 His forthrightness must have been in question for him to make such an obvious statement. Which alerts me to lookout for other examples of Paul defending himself in this letter.

1:18 Again, this seems to indicate what is going on behind the scenes in Rome. Such a claim would seem out of place, especially in an introduction, if there were not specific examples going on.

1:19 This would be a nice theology of itself. "What can be known about God is plain". No special revelation is necessary for complete understanding.

1:20 Who is the "they" whom Paul lambasts here?

1:26 What is unnatural intercourse for a woman? Sex out of marriage may be considered quite natural for a biological human. Could he be referring to anal or oral sex?

1:27 As staunchly as some gay theologians try to spin this, it's pretty incontrovertible that Paul was homophobic.

1:32 Who is They? This verse seems to indicate the Jews, but it is certainly not clear.

2:1 This makes it even more curious. The "they" is now a "you", and a "whoever you are" to boot. Is it possible that Paul is referring to someone particular, rather than a group of people or a sort of person, and that his audience would know exactly whom he means?

The sentiment in the verse is also finding particular resonance with me this week. I have a terrible judgment addiction. Whenever I take a Meyer's Briggs test, I invariably come out on the far "J" side of the scale. It's my nature, I like black and white divisions. One is either on time, or one is not, and yes, it does matter. The job is either finished, or it is not etc.. This becomes a troubling trait when applied to person, however. People are invariably and wholly made up of gray areas. They cannot be judged, by other people at least, and certainly not according to any criteria I could come up with. Why then do I struggle so to withhold judgement from my fellow man?

2:7 What about those who, by patiently doing good seek, not for glory and honor and immortality, but simply to do good? Any theology that glory and honor for goodness is suspect in my book.

2:9-11 This is an interesting statement. "There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek." Why the Jew first? This seems to contradict his next statement: "for God shows no partiality".

2:12 So, by Paul's theology, could a Jew who is under the Law could be judged just as righteous as a Christian--if that Jew follows the Law to the same extent that the Christian follows his law? that seems a stretch, but it's an interesting question.

2:14 But what about when the Gentiles do not do what the law requires, that is to say, what of those parts of the law that are not obvious? Is it possible that Paul is not talking about the Mosaic law at all here? It would seem out of place for him to refer to Christian principles as "the law", when that term evokes a very different set of laws in the minds of his audience.

2:17 The tone Paul takes here definitely lends credence to the idea that he has a specific person in mind.

2:26 This logic is tenuous, but Paul is jumping through verbal hoops anyway. It's as if to say, "Your idea is so ridiculous, that here's another ridiculous idea to put in your pipe."

2:29 Whomever Paul is trying to discredit/shame here, he (or she, I supose, but that seems less likely) is clearly of the camp mentioned in Acts that raised controversy over circumcision.

3:2 What? This promises to be a curious line of reasoning.

3:6 Not exactly sound reasoning, for he speaks on the assumption that God is fit to judge the world.

3:30 This is the first thing that Paul says in this chapter that I can make any sense out of. He does so many somersaults, so many reversals of position and leaps of logic, that I cannot keep it straight. A few possibilities: he is simply dictating off the cuff, he is trying to overawe his audience with logical legerdemain, this makes sense in some bizarre way. Let us try to track his train of thought:

• 2-4 The fact that the Jews did not keep the law is not a refutation of that law, but (in some unexplained leap to verse 5) a vindication of it. This point seems unproven, and that verbal trick may be the foundation for the silliness that follows.
  
• 6-8 seem to be a logical dead end. It is not clear whether Paul is making this first claim to undermine those who say "Let us do evil so that good may come", or whether he is honestly offering that his falsehood vindicates God's truthfulness.
• 9 We are certainly not better of than when we began this chapter (a cheap dig, sorry). Who is we? Is Paul aligning himself with the Jews or the Greeks here, as he has a claim to both. Or as a Roman? That would also be a supportable position. He is indeed all things to all men. In any case, this is a reversal of what he said in 2-4.
• 19-20 This seems to indicate that the law is a mean trick, an impossible task set up to highlight man's imperfection-which is a nice setup to the claim that the law has been supplanted in verses 21-26.
• 27-31 This is a new strand, and the connection is hard to pin down. Whence came the topic of boasting? The Jew's law--a law of works--seemed to allow for boasting (although that is a straw argument, quickly smashed by Paul in verse 9), but the law of faith allows for no such thing.

It seems that this whole logical roller coaster is a way to justify to the Jewish community in Rome (whom is seems clear is the audience) that the Law and the law can coexist peacefully. Whew. That was an exhausting--though not exhaustive--feat of analysis. I need a drink.

4:1 Paul is clearly continuing with this line of logic in this chapter

4:2 Now this is actually a strong point. Those who are arguing that the Law/works are the path to "boasting" which seems to be used as a synonym for righteousness might well draw upon Abraham to support their claim. Here Paul conscripts Abraham into his own army.

4:10 Again, flawless logic. It's a pity that Paul went through the mess in chapter 3 to get here.

4:15 This is Paul's real difficulty. If there is no law, then do whatever the hell you want, as long as you have "faith". It remains to be seen whether he successfully resolves it.

4:25 Verdict: not proven (not yet at least).

5:1 The question of whether being "justified by faith" really requires anything of one remains unanswered.

5:2 When Paul first raised the topic of boasting, I expected him to renounce it. He seems rather to be chasing it.

5:9-10 Paul's point, or rather his attempted intensification of his point, seems tenuous here. He seems to be saying "since we were saved while sinners, now that we are saved we are doubly saved". This sounds great, but has no meaning.

5:12 perhaps it is just a trick of translation, but this is definitely a dangling modifier. "For just as sin came into the world through one man" etc. Never gets a "So too has . . ." to finish off the thought. Just as _____ needs a so too ______ in order to have any meaning.

5:17 I'm still irritated by Paul's seemingly meaningless use of "much more surely" Here, as in 9-10, it has no meaning, no object.

In short, Paul clearly has something meaningful to say, but it does not seem clear yet--perhaps even to him--what that is. It certainly could not ever be clear enough to be above dispute.

6:1 Paul is setting up a straw man here for the logical refutation of his argument--one that I find myself making regularly. If salvation is assured, why bother with virtue?

6:11 His argument doesn't seem quite watertight, though. He reasons that, since our sins died with Christ, our lives belong to him/God. That presupposes good faith (in the legal sense) on the party of the second part, though. There still seems to be a loophole in the contract . . .

6:15 He raises the question again--tacitly acknowledging that he hasn't really answered it.

6:17 Thank goodness you are acting in good faith, in other words--that you haven't taken advantage of the loophole.

6:23 But are the wages of sin still death after one has been "saved"? Paul had better hope not!

7:1 Wait, I thought the law was not binding at all anymore! Paul here betrays his solicitude of Jewish Romans.

7:4 Or he's just using it as a metaphor. That was really quite slick, actually! Not a real sound analogy, but slick nonetheless.

7:7 Sin is almost an agency here. Paul seems to be getting carried away--but it is no doubt calculated.

7:15 Paul is deft here, and at the same time quite sincere. The feeling of helplessness before this mysterious agency "sin" is familiar to me. To Paul, Sin is a wily adversary. In v. 8 here It takes advantage of the law to make a sinner out of its victims. I once believed similarly--I felt like a marionette, a victim of some force that made me do terrible things. I realize now that the force was not sin, but simply unconsciousness--blindly following urges and saying "lalala I can't hear you!" Quite an elegant verse.

7:20 And here Paul distances himself from that agency, as though it was not part of himself.

7:21 A playful, but potentially confusing, use of "law" here

7:23 and here confusing in the extreme. 4 different laws? Or only two?

7:25 And where does this leave us but in a moral quandary? A fun one though . . .

8:3 This is a rather elegant answer to the charge that if there is no condemnation in spirit, one might as well do as one pleases. The spirit is indeed uncondemnable, a law which one can only take advantage of by living in spirit.

8:19 This is an interesting turn of phrase: the revealing of the children of God. What would such a revealing entail?

8:22 Evidently he means revealing in the sense of being born.

8:29 No doubt a difficult theological passage. If those whom God has called are predetermined, why evangelize? Simply to awaken, or reveal them?

8:37-39 And a nice flourish of poetry to end the thread.

Francois Villon: Poems

Seldom does Philip Ward lead me wrong, but this was not a book from which I took much. It is probably through no fault of the author, but two things conspire to make Villon's meaning inaccessible to me: its being written in Middle French, and it's constant reference to petty personal matters that no modern person, no matter how scholarly, could have reference to. It seems fair to say that the allure of Villon is in his biography, rather than in his poetry. The character of a robber/poet, a true mountebank, is seductive, and one would almost tend to like the poems sight unseen, solely on the excitement of the author. The Testament especially was entirely inscrutable, but I enjoyed reading a few examples of the mock will, a form of poetry I had not encountered before. A few of the Ballades struck me, and I found them to be a remarkably effective use of refrain as a literary device.  One of my favorites:

I know flies in milk
I know the man by his clothes
I know fair weather from foul
I know the apple by the tree
I know the tree when I see the sap
I know when all is one
I know who labors and loafs
I know everything but myself.

Villon seemingly refers to this sparingly layered poem later in another that touched my fancy:

You don't know a thing--Yes I do--What?--Flies in milk
One's white, one's black, they're opposites--
That's all?--how can I say it better?
If that doesn't suit you I'll start over--
You're lost-Well I'll go down fighting--
I've nothing more to tell you--I'll survive without it.

Framed as an argument between Villon and his own heart, this poem is nicely reflective of the earlier sentiment: he knows many things--most of which have to do with drawing distinctions, or using the left brain--but knows little of such right-brain activities as self-reflection. His style, most pointedly in this Ballade, reminds me of Mayakovksy's, especially in An Extraordinary Adventure. That Villon was attempting this sort of conceptually sophisticated poetry more than 400 years before Mayakovsky is testament to his power as a poet. It's a pity that much of the pith seems to have been lost with time.

Lawrence of Arabia

I really need to be more careful what I read and watch. Watching this while reading The Awakening has had an effect on my mood, to be sure. Ward's Lifetime of Reading has an advantage over the AFIs 100 Best American Films list, in that not all of them are ponderous. So far all of the films have been of the sort that make one stagger--at the expense if nothing else. Lawrence of Arabia was one such, and it's impact on me was intensified by its root in reality. That this extraordinary man really existed is really rather astonishing, and the film did an admirable job of capturing that. Still, as impressive as the acting, cinematography and the sheer scope of the project were, it is the story that is most affecting. I am not sure whether I should even read Lawrence's autobiography now (but I probably will). I take some comfort at least in the fact that this man, as enviable as he may have been at one point, was driven quite mad and unhappy by his enviability. Although I wanted to be him at once, by the end of the movie I was grateful for my own small, satisfying life.

Kate Chopin: The Awakening and Other Stories

I have a growing perception that my approach to literary criticism is embarrassingly old fashioned. What I have to say about this book is no doubt going to sound suspiciously like an undergraduate essay. Any self respecting deconstructionist would no doubt berate me for my tight, sensible readings of texts, but I can't help myself. Every text holds two stories: the one the author intended, and the one we make up about it. All we ever truly read is the latter, which would be lamentable if it were not unavoidable.

The selections from each of Chopin's short story collections lend themselves especially well to a simple, obvious analysis. The selections from Bayou Folk have an obvious common theme, that of longing for what belongs to another. Likewise, the selections from A Night in Acadie share a theme, that of unexpectedly liking that which one might not be expected to--either by society or by the reader. It is tempting to observe that The Awakening takes both of these themes, and turns them nicely into one: longing for what is unexpected. If I were an undergraduate still, and struggling to find a topic, this would be it.

But I am not. As tempting as it is to make a case for that reading--and a case could be made--I choose not to. In fact, I choose not to make any reading at all, but rather to observe that The Awakening is a very nearly perfect account of its eponymous topic, and one akin to my own experience. I found every moment believable, and that shall be enough.

BTD 10

Clifford Goldstein: God, Gödel and Grace.

I often say--only halfway jokingly--that those who pretend to know everything make it difficult on those of us who really do. As manifestly as Goldstein would like to be listed in the latter category, he could not more clearly be in the former. I have never read a more despicable namedropper, nor anyone more desperate to seem credible on another's coattails. It really is ludicrous. Let me cite you a few of my favorite examples:

"Ethics and love, hate and hope, transcend not just the periodic table of elements but all 112 other facets of reality that the table represents. Np, Am, Ar, Kr, Xe, Os, Re, Tc, Cs, Ba, Si, and the 101 rest--no matter how microscopically finely tuned and balanced the proportions--can't fully explain heroism, art, fear, generosity, altruism, hate, hope, and passion. To pretend that they can is to equate Luciano Pavarotti singing Il Barbiere di Siviglia with Belching." (26)

Even this small passage yields a treasury of pretense, one which it is a pleasure to dissect. A quick list of insults to the reader: listing eleven elements so make the topic clear, listing them only by their symbol, even the choice of elements is condescending, and of course Goldstein feels compelled to do the arithmetic for the reader and observe that there are 101 others. Then there is the mention of Pavarotti--I feel condescended to even by the fact that Goldstein uses his first name. Is there more than one Pavarotti?--and the use of the Italian name for The Barber of Seville. Anybody who doesn't know opera will have no idea what he's talking about, while anybody who does know opera will quickly recognize that Pavarotti was not even top billing in Il Barbiere. Why not choose a role for which he was really famous? So execrable is Goldstein's disingenuous allusion here that it takes longer to dissect it than it probably did to write.

These are minor sins on paper, but they accumulate so rapidly that the reader is jaundiced by the end of the first chapter. It is no exaggeration to say that there are multiple examples on every last page. Goldstein invokes everyone from Kant and Wittgenstein (favorite reinforcements for those who hope to overwhelm their critics with citations) to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I was both offended and nauseous by the end of the book.

Which was disappointing. My friend Fran pushed this item on me, perceiving, I think, the spiritual quest I am on. She said it was brilliant, but is less skeptical than I am by nature and may have been taken in by Goldstein's namedropping. It is all the more tragic because I am in agreement with Goldstein on many key points. For instance, I have often said that I don't know whether there is anything bigger than I am out there for sure, but that I choose to act as if. After all, if there is not, I don't want to play this game anymore. That is to say that if I (man) am the biggest, most sophisticated mind out there, what fun is that? This is in fundamental agreement with Goldstein's conclusion that "Belief in God [is] about as reasonable as belief in other minds" (94), and I like the way he puts it. He even builds a sound argument leading up to it, and I also appreciate his supposition that "the moral components of the universe [are] just as precise, just as fundamental as the physical ones" (82). The way he lays it out, such a suggestion seems rather reasonable, I hate to admit.

But that's as far as Goldstein really can take his argument. He tries vainly to connect it to ransom theology, but  even he seems to recognize the vanity of it. That spire is unreachable on steps of logic, and requires a submission to that dogma. He is reduced toward the end of the book to such embarassing pleas as "He will, he has promised to, and if we can't trust his promises--then whose?" (110). This is not to say that I blame him. Such feeble arguments are the only way one can really arrive at his predetermined goal. What is sad is not that his ultimate conclusions are insupportable; it is that he wants so desperately for everyone to agree with him. He thinks he is organizing the sum total of Western thought into a grand unified field theory, when he is unable to, in his own words, "step outside the epistemological box stapled together from the empirical, cultural and happenstance scraps scavenged from [his] own intellectual turf" (56).

KSCPP: Admiral Yi Sun-Sin

The Korean Social and Cultural Promotion Project is one of the best propaganda machines I have ever witnessed. I was convinced after reading this little booklet that Admiral Yi is the best human being who ever lived, and want to join the navy. Of course, the hyperbole quickly wears off, and one recognizes that he or she has been brainwashed in a small way, but nonetheless, the book is incredibly effective.

And I'm sure there is some truth to the sentiment. Admiral Yi is as renowned in naval circles as he is unknown in other circles. Reading the excerpts from his War Diaries impressed me with how utterly selfish and dedicated he was. As unjustly treated he was, he never complained, or blamed. He took accountability for his own actions, namely the salvation of all Korea.

I want to mention that I took a sick pleasure in the one typo I found in the text of the book. I can picture the horror of the KSCPP when they discovered it, and the sacking of the entire editorial department. Admiral Yi Sun-Sin did not, after all, have a War Dairy, as amusing as the idea of vicious battle cows is.

G.K. Chesterton: Favorite Father Brown Stories

Having recently read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon at Philip Ward's suggestion, I give him credit for placing this item after it in the Lifetime of Reading. The two bear comparison, and in that comparison the charms of Chesterton's work are apparent in a way that they might not be on their own.

Conan Doyle is clearly the better detective writer. Not only is Holmes a more polished character, his partnership with Watson makes more sense than Father Brown's odd-couple pairing with the criminal Flambeau. It is tempting to look at Chesterton as a member of the same species as Conan Doyle, but of an inferior genus. It even feels at times like he is copying that more famous writer, a contemporary of his.

Doyle often makes the mistake of seemingly putting the cart before the horse--that is to say thinking of a gimmick first and constructing a story around it. Chesterton seems to be guilty of a similar crime, pulling an empty cart. Unlike Doyle, it is Chesterton's mysteries that seem incidental and after-the-fact. One good example is in "The Blue Cross". The mysteries of the spilled apples, the thrown soup etc. detract from the fascinating story of a Priest and an Arch-Criminal discussing ontology. What seems to merit the most focus and possess the most interest is given the least time.

If one acts on the assumption that the writer is a good one (and why not do so?), the question is why make such an odd choice? Why bother to write a mystery when one's real intent is to write philosophy?  This is again the case in "The Sign of the Broken Sword". Chesterton is almost didactic in his philosophy, and one wonders why he bothers. It doesn't help that the potentially vivid character of Father Brown himself never quite takes off the ground.

These two flaws point in a rather unflawed direction, however. Chesterton's philosophy is clearly the real point of the writing, and Brown is never more than a vehicle for it. His intention is obvious: to piggyback on the popularity of his contemporary Conan Doyle, and the interest in the detective genre that he generated. In such a vehicle, Chesterton could reach the masses with something far beyond their normal scope of thought.

That something is an almost mystical approach to ontology. A good reader looks for repeated words or ideas that seem out of place, and Chesterton's favorite is "Fairyland". Each of the mysteries takes on a surreal quality, and Brown often wonders if any of it is really happening. " . . . we here are on the wrong side of the tapestry," he remarks in "The Sins of Prince Saradine". "The things that happen here do not seem to mean anything; they mean something somewhere else." Chesterton's persistent underlying question is "What does it mean?", something that Conan Doyle would not bother asking. Holmes' comparative solidity as a character serves him: the mysteries almost seem to have taken place in our reality, and a subculture has developed to embrace the "gentle fiction", as Leslie Klinger puts it, of Holmes actual existence. In the same way, Brown's haziness serves Chesterton's themes. Conan Doyle seems to ask "What if this happened?"; Chesterton's question is, "What if none of this happened?"

The Pantastic Mr. Pox

Is it racist to make fun of the way Koreans write names of movies? Anyway, normally this inconsequential little movie would not merit an entry, but I have a lot of thoughts that are vaguely connected to it, so here goes:

When I was 12, my family up and moved to Central America. Why? Well, that's a different story, but let's summarize by saying that my Mom was avoiding stuff in the States, and they thought it would be good for us kids. On that account, my parents were completely most formative event of our youth.

In Belize, we neglected to bring much with us of American culture. We had one cassette tape, with The Beach Boys on one side and Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons on the other. Even now, when we hear one of those songs, it transports us back to our little cinder block house, the delicious bread, the little colored pencil drawings of fish that I would draw.

As for books, I remember 3 that I had. One was a Shakespeare Complete Works that I have still today. It was ancient, and in my youth I was convinced it was hundreds of years old--perhaps a first edition! The other two were Little House in the Big Woods and a collection of short stories by Road Dahl, including The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I read all three over and over, due to the absence of anything else.

It is rather obvious that the movie did not live up to the tender regard in which I hold "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" It would have been an impressive feat to live up to my childhood memories. I should have thereby known that it would be a disappointment; it could not have been otherwise.  Nonetheless, the depth of disappointment was surprising. The additions made to the story were not unnecessary; they were poisonous. The charm of the story lay primarily in an appeal to the most basic human comforts: enormous amounts of delicious food. It was this same comfort that I remember in "Little House in the Big Woods" The storehouses filled with smoked meat made my mouth water, and that simple pleasure was enough. It was not necessary to add silliness, or worse to complicate the theme from one of simple pleasure to an analysis of human nature and filial dynamics. It would be turning "Little House" from a story about the joys of childhood into a Telenovela.

There remains one story from the collection that is untainted, however. "The Story of Henry Sugar" was even more formative to me, and I think that I shall go find an online text of it and reread it. Perhaps some of my childhood pleasure remains in that text, and I could certainly use some of it now.

AFI: 100 years 100 films

Although this blog has been primarily devoted to the written word, its ostensible mission is to chart the effect of ALL media on my thinking, and I have therefore decided to strengthen the attention paid to film. To that end, I am starting with the AFI's list of the 100 best American films, and working my way down.

Having already seen #s 1 and 2 on that list, I feel I should mention my impressions of them. It is clear from both items that enjoyability is nowhere on AFI's list of criteria (a fact easily confirmed). Citizen Kane's place on the list clearly comes from its significance, both in terms of cultural impact (I knew the meaning of "Rosebud" decades before it occurred to me to watch the movie) and cinematic innovation. Fritz Lang was doing similar things with the camera decades earlier, but never so popularly. Of course, Welles' performance is the real point of the movie, and it adds a layer of enjoyability to the layer of significance. Casablanca is clearly more enjoyable than Kane, but also significant in its own way. The catchphrases and romantic tropes are irrevocably woven into American cultural fabric, and all romantic dramas (and comedies) since owe it a great debt.

The Godfather

A riveting example of film making, both from the director and the cast. Scorsese's little touches grace the movie at all points, though never heavily. My favorite example is the bugle in the background as Don Vito is gunned down, a move inspired by Kurt Weill. Brando is brilliant, as always, and possibly my favorite actor at this point in my life, but the real standout is Al Pacino, whose Michael goes through the most believably and seamlessly drastic character arc that readily come to mind. The transformation to Don Michael is visible in every point of his performance, and it makes perfect sense--as though the script was merely an afterthought.

Gone With the Wind

I was not expecting to enjoy this nearly as much as I did, though like The Godfather it could have used a little trim. Both films were epic, not only for their ambition, but also for the amount of story they tried to tackle. Each of the acts in GWTW could easily have been a movie in itself, and still have come across as overly dramatic. The film lost me for a bit with the dozenth tragic death, but claimed my heart in the end with Clark Gable's performance. He managed to make the cad Rhett Butler completely sympathetic, and maybe the only real person in the whole movie. How has this not yet been made into an opera?

Stay tuned: I'm downloading Lawrence of Arabia even now . . .

Acts IV

22:1 This shapes up to be less of a defense, and more of a testimony. Paul's tacit admission of the need for a defense is very shrewd on his part, as is his address of the crowd as "brothers and fathers".

22:12 A very nice spin of Ananias' role in all this: to portray him as a devout Jew, rather than a Christian.

22:21 His only misstep seems to be bringing the Gentiles into it; they were no doubt eating out of his hand up until that point. The Jews' misplaced racial pride trumps their reason again.

22:29 This opens an interesting question. I never really questioned the idea of Paul's Roman citizenship before, but having read a little bit more Tacitus and Plutarch since I last visited the Bible, I remember that actual citizenship was far more rare than one would think of, given the word's modern usage. To be a Roman citizen was something that not even all the residents of Rome were granted, let alone those in the outer provinces. What is it about Paul's background that allows him to make this claim?

23:3 Paul seems emboldened by intimations of his impending death

23:5 So, obviously Paul knew who Ananias was. This lends credence to theories that his eyesight was not the best

23:6 I never noticed this rather brilliant maneuver before. Paul is not going down without a fight!

23:12 Which Jews? The lack of specificity is a bit maddening at times.

23:16 Paul's sister? Never heard of her before this.

23:35 I wonder if the would be assassins are still fasting at this point . . .

24:2 Tertullus' flattery is clearly going to be no match for Paul's superior powers of rhetoric

24:9 I suppose which Jews are meant is clear enough here.

24:21 Paul does not even seem to be making an effort here. He just blandly recounts the facts--although he does make a smooth semantic cover-up in v. 23.

24:27 Is this two years that Paul was in prison, or two years that Felix was governor?

25:6 prudent to delay, in this case. It gives the Jews time to cool down and reflect on their hotheaded plan.

25:8 I'm not sure this was strictly true. Paul, with his semantic skill, could have argued the case, but it would have been disingenuous to do so.

25:12 and of course Paul's motives were more complex than he lets on. He seems resigned to his death at this point, and determined, not to live, but to go out with a bang.

26:2 This is not the first time that Paul begins with something resembling flattery

26:10 I question the translation of the word "saints" here. It seems a bit revisionist. What is the etymology of that word anyway? Was Paul really taking the liberty of calling his peers consecrated before their bodies were even cold?

26:14 This is not what the voice said, according to the earlier account. Which account is correct? One of two things seems likely: that Paul engaged in a rhetorical liberty here, or that Luke's source of this story was something other than first hand.

26:23 By no stretch of the imagination was Jesus the first to rise from the dead.

26:29, 32 Two things here give support to the idea that Paul has resigned himself to his death. He entreats Agrippa, not for his life, but for his belief. Secondly, his appeal to the Emperor is counter to the goal of escaping death.

27:1 Back to first person, indicating Luke's presence on this part of the journey. Was he with Paul under arrest in Judea? Or did he join the party just in time to travel to Rome, and the final curtain?

27:3 In what way did Paul need to be cared for? Is his health also failing as the end draws close? That would explain some of his resignation. Or are they caring for him in the sense of ministering to him?

27:6 So they even have a Roman escort after this point?

27:23 This verse is downright weird. Firstly, Paul says that he belongs to a particular angel. The metaphysical implications of this are significant, somewhat along the lines of a Guardian Angel--for one person, at least. Elsewhere, certain nations are also said to have particular angels. What is the arrangement here? Also, Paul says that he worships the angel. The implications here are even more profound. Is worhip really offered to individual angels? If so, that's a pretty Catholic theology.

27:34 Did the crew refrain from eating because of anxiety, or nausea, or some other reason? Clearly there was food available.

27:42 I guess this answers the question of Paul's escort.

28:6 Paul clearly possesses some power of his own at this point--it is no longer necessary to pray or concentrate for miracles to be performed.

28:8 In some cases, that is.

28:28 Except that they have proven no better.

28:30 what funds did Paul have that allowed him to live thus?

Bruce Cumings: Korea's Place in the Sun

I tend not to remember anything from non-fiction books that I read, let alone have anything to say about them, but this might be the exception. Cumings' book is on the surface an objective history, but his extensive personal experience has seemingly kept him too close to the facts for that to be strictly true. While the book gives the facts of the matters considered, the level of editorializing is heavy and undisguised. He includes personal opinions and even personal experiences liberally, something that would lessen the book's value in some eyes, as the value of a historical account seems to be tied to its objectivity.

In my eyes, however, strict objectivity is no measure of a book's value. Never mind the arguable opinion that there is no such thing; if it did exist, it would bore me. See my earlier post on Michael J. Seth's comparable Korean history to see just how little I can retain of books that prize their impartiality. In that very post, I complain of my own ability to follow a non-fiction book, but it is apparent that the real culprit is not the lack of fiction, but the lack of a narrative. Cumings' version of Korean history rectifies that situation nicely, making throughout a convincing case that the traditional way of looking at Korea is misguided, or at least that "What all men speak well of, look critically into; what all men condemn, examine first before you decide" (Confucius, epigraph to chapter 8).

Among the counter intuitive stances Cumings takes are that Japan's occupation of Korea in the early 20th century had certain benefits, that the ROK's early years were just as fascist as the DPRK's were communist, and that the United States intervention after WWII is to blame for the current standoff between the two Koreas. For each of these he makes a convincing argument, though I probably will not be repeating such things in conversation on this side of the DMZ. At any rate, I find that I like my history with a little personal investment. It makes it more memorable, even if nothing else. Such a thing might be frowned upon, especially if one was not expecting an addenda, but I shall take a note from Confucius and "examine first before [I] decide".

Gustave Flaubert: Madame Bovary

This item represents the first of this year's entries from Ward's Lifetime of Reading, and also an important item on the list of books I pretended to have read in college. I remember giving up at the end of part one, partly out of moral discomfort, partly out of boredom. The book bothered me, even then; if there is one key descriptor that I would apply to Emma Bovary as a character, it is "uncomfortable". This is not only to say that she is perpetually ill-at-ease, but also that I shared her discomfort while reading it. I became maudlin and self-absorbed. I began to mentally revise my version of my last relationship. In this new version I was Emma, troublesome, aloof, unfair. I even wrote a needy email to . . . someone--that probably would have been better off unsent. Some drunk-text. I send Flaubert-mail.

I was similarly affected by Flaubert's A Sentimental Education, though not so deeply. When affected effectively, the reader cannot help but wonder how the author did it. What tricks did Flaubert use to get into my mind? Flaubert is traditionally treated as one of the first and foremost Realist writers. Although it is not clear whether he would have agreed with this appellation, looking at him in this light is helpful to decoding his tactics. It is an easy matter to observe his selection of common characters and common events, his aversion to anything epic. What interested me more in this novel, however, were stylistic elements that I perceived.

For one thing, I was reminded of Mark Twain's quote: "When you catch an adjective, kill it." Although Flaubert may not have had the same conscious aversion to Adjectives, one can see how it would fit in nicely with a Realist philosophy. Adjectives can easily become editorials. The "crystal clear sky" imparts a judgment, as opposed to the adjectiveless "there are no clouds in the sky", a subtle, but stylistically significant distinction. I am now going to open up to a random passage, and try to find a decent example . . .

"The countryside was deserted; he heard nothing around him but the regular swishing of the grass against his shoes and the chirping of crickets hidden in the distant oatfields. He thought of Emma in the parlor, dressed as he had seen her, and he undressed her" (127).

It is clear that this remarkable passage draws much of its power from its frankness. The one adjective in the paragraph, "distant", does not editorialize, and gives relevant information. A grammarian might call it a identifying adjective, rather than a descriptive one. This pattern is noticeable throughout Bovary. Although Flaubert does not entirely eschew descriptive adjectives, their presence is muted--even Twain did not recommend killing them entirely.

Related to this restraint is Flaubert's limited employment of figurative language. Metaphor also can stray into editorial if not checked, and Flaubert stops well short of that line. Let's examine another random passage, shall we?

"At dawn he saw three black hens asleep in a tree; he shuddered, terrified at this omen. He promised the Holy Virign he would donate three chasubles to the church and walk barefoot from the cemetery at Les Bertaux to the Chapel in Vassonville" (330).

That this short passage is free from anything resembling figurative language is not terribly surprising. It would be a simple matter to add a bit of it here, but it does not take a genius to recognize that the image of the hens is powerful enough without poetic embellishment. Further examination reveals, however, that the entire page is just as matter-of-fact, no, two pages, three, one has two read four pages to find a solid example of figurative language, and even then it is the rather tame " . . . their voices floated out over the countryside, rising and falling in waves" (333). One might be tempted to call this writing prosaic, so free from embellishment is it, but the effect is not prosaic; it is profound. The strength of Flaubert's writing stems not from his facility with a phrase or his gift for painting a scene. No, it comes from the very real, very plain things that people do, say and think.

For this reason it should come as no surprise that Flaubert does not indulge in that fatal poetic flaw, apostrophe. He presents the story, and leaves it to the reader to decide what it means. On occasion, he cannot restrain himself from being epigrammatic, but the reader forgives him, both due to the rarity of his intrusions and their quality. Only two examples come to mind, both of them welcome: "It is better not to touch our idols; the gilt comes off on our hands" and "Speech is a rolling mill that always stretches out the feelings that go into it" (278, 230).

Such observations do not necessarily answer the question, "How does Flaubert creep into the mind of the reader so surgically?". The answer might well be his keen and honest observations of the human thought process, as I observed in my notes on A Sentimental Education. What I comment on here might merely be stylistic choices on Flaubert's part, rather than real strategic genius. At any rate, it is clear that I did him a disservice in college by reading only one section, and I am glad to have revisited him now, with a little more insight under my belt.

Acts III

15:1 Luke is making a consciously politic effort to not embarrass anybody here.

15:5 You can't teach an old dog new trick. I wonder if Nicodemus was one of these.

15:7-11 I can find no fault with this speech of Peter's. His reasoning is not only sound, but loving, and outside of the box. It goes beyond what was necessary for the moment.

15:14 When did Peter take the name "Simeon" as opposed to "Simon"? Is this a nuance of translation?

15:19 "I have reached the decision"? What role does James have here, exactly? Is he the chairman of this board? A John Hancock?

15:20 Here's an interesting question: why these 4 things? Fornication seems pretty obvious, as does the idol proscription. So what was the big deal with blood? Was it a nod to the Jews, for whom that would simply be beyond the pale? Alternately, is there some theological significance that was invented for this occasion?

15:21 This is a seeming non sequitir. I can think of two ways to take it: firstly, James could mean that Moses is no longer a source unique to the Jews. Contrariwise, he could mean that The Jewish Law has had its chance (and, as mentioned by Peter, no one could keep it anyway).

15:24 This letter is very carefully written. It indicates that the elders in Jerusalem did not agree with those who made Gentiles get circumcised (without saying it), but this is manifestly misleading.

15:36 This has often been cited in my experience as an example of the candor of the Bible, as a way of strengthening its authority. I'm not so sure of that. It's not a particularly candid account, neither is it neutral. He in whom authority was vested came away looking rather like the more high-minded of the two.

16:1 This is a nice moment to introduce Timothy from a literary perspective. We just finished reconciling the Jews and the Greeks, and voila! Ecce Homo!

16:3 Whatwhatwhat? I thought we resolved that question! This reflects rather ill on Paul. Yes, I perceive this to be a cowardly move.

16:6-7 Is there a difference between the Holy Spirit in v6 and the Spirit of Jesus in v7?

16:10 Wait, who is "we"? Is Timothy narrating now? I though Luke wrote this. I've looked four times and not found a skipped quotation mark . . . it definitely seems that Luke is traveling with them now.

16:15 How could she be judged faithful to the Lord? She just heard about him. Faith is momentary, but faithfulness requires a bit more time.

16:18 this account certainly refutes any idea that the source of a vision can be told by its fruitage. This was clearly the work of what Luke considers a demon, and yet it offered two beneficial fruits: wealth, and, more to the point, a direct witness to Paul's party.

16:28 Paul's behavior here is different than Peter's in a similar situation. Why did he linger?

16:37 This explains the former. Paul very astutely set the magistrates up. Why the earthquake, then, becomes the question. A bit extreme if it was only for the salvation of one guard and his household.

17:12 This is the second passage that makes special mention of the women. It is less remarkable that Greek women were persuaded, but Jewish women were definitely not used to making such decision for themselves, or acting as their own agents.

17:16 I know a little how he feels here. To this day, the sight of a cross still give me metaphorical mono.

17:18 This might have been a refreshing change of pace for Paul, to argue with a new set of people and develop a new set of arguments.

17:23 Possibly the most brilliant piece of rhetoric in the Bible.

17:25 This might touch on the source of Paul's rather strong reaction to the idols in the city: not that they were irreligious, but that they were insulting.

18:2 It's tempting to conflate these two with Aquila and Prisca from earlier. Is it possible that the timeline is just a little revised, and that they are the same?

18:4 What kind of Greeks would he find in a synagogue? Is he still catering to the Jews?

18:6 If so, it would appear that he has changed his mind here.

18:9 Perhaps it was necessary to give Paul this message because of his itinerant tendencies. He certainly seemed to leave Athens in a hurry.

18:17 Why, I wonder. What was the transgression of the Sosthenes?

18:23 Paul was terribly peripatetic during this period, and it was only in Corinth that he was told to linger. What was it about the Corinthian Character that merited a such a long stay from Paul, and more written communication too?

18:24 Now this Apollos is an interesting character. What did his role end up being in the congregation? Although this passage is filled with praise for him, no mention is made of his being divinely inspired.

19:3 This embellishes the character of Apollo. What were his motivations? Was he one of John's original disciples? Did the baptism of John really have no access to the Holy Spirit?

19:9 This is the first mention in Acts of The Way, I think. I forget which of the Gospels it was that refers to it. Clearly, it was about this time in the story that the term came into use, so the Gospel in question was written during Paul's travels, which makes me think it was probably Luke.

19:12 Belief in holy relics is not so silly after all, by this account--the fingers of the saints, the sarirae of monks, may actually have some power. This begs questions such as how long did the power of Paul's kleenex last? Did it require some conscious blessing on his part? Are there any around today? Are they still powerful? Why is there no mention of Jesus' kleenex curing the sick?

19:15 which event certainly mythbusts a certain flavor of Christian who claim the Jesus' name alone is good for something.

19:20 In a way, it was not only the word of the Lord that grew mighty, but also The Word of the Lord.

19:37 This doesn't seem entirely true. They clearly proclaimed that Artemis--or her image at lest--had not power. wouldn't that make them blasphemers in their eyes?

20:3 Dang, that's a long trip, presumably through the Hellespont and Anatolia. He had been protected up until this point, why waste so much time? Did he receive another warning?

20:5 His retinue is growing. Will he end up with 12?

20:6 this is eight, counting Luke who is now speaking in the first person again.

20:7 Here's another parallel with Jesus' narrative. I think there's something to this line of reasoning.

20:11 Three parallels in this verse alone: the upper room, the resurrection, and the breaking of bread. none of them significant enough on their own to make the point, but together?

20:18, so Paul did not go through Anatolia after all. I'm confused about his actual route.

20:22 A fascinating turn of phrase: captive to the Spirit. I don't recall its use anywhere else. Is this not altogether pleasant for him?

20:17 Did the Apostles come up, or was this just the local elders?

20:36 A moving and believable speech. I wonder why he chose Ephesus to deliver it. Did he just happen to be here when he received the testimony of his imminent death?

21:8 As mentioned earlier, Philip is one of those interesting characters about whom only enough is revealed to pique the interest. What is meant here by calling him "one of the seven"?

21:13 Wow the echoes of Jesus' last days are super loud here.

21:20 I wonder whose decision it is here not to capitalize the word "law". Is this reflective of the original Greek, or is it an arbitrary distinction made by the publishers. Which question gives rise to the even larger one of why "The Lord" is capitalized elsewhere.

21:26 This purification ritual does not ring any bells. It is especially weird that Paul is asked specifically to go through the rite with four other men, and to "pay for the shaving of their heads." What does this ritual mean to the Jews? Should it be considered a cowardly concession to those who will clearly not be appeased?

21:37 I like how much power language carries through this passage. It is Paul's use of Greek that gets the tribune's attention, and his use of Hebrew that shushes the crowd.

Namdaemun (남 대문) Gate

On this most recent trip to Seoul, I was determined to see Korean National Wonder #1. Although there doesn't seem to be any particular order to the numbering, the number 1 has a special appeal to the American competitive spirit in me, and I wanted to cross it off the list (in fact, it is tempting to see all of the KNT in order, but that's simply unworkable). My obliging cotravelers and I assumed it would be easy to find this historical building, expecting to find a crowd of tourists, or at least some helpful signs.

After searching for a half an hour, we stopped into a coffee shop and reconnoitered. Surely it was around here somewhere! Perhaps behind that enormous scaffoldlike structure. In fact, that scaffoldlike structure is exactly where it is supposed to be! This is what we were expecting to see:
Instead, this is what was there:

You can't really tell from the plexiglass barrier that surrounds it, but Namdaemun is now covered by an enormous scaffold. Underneath, it looks something like this:
Namdaemun was all but destroyed in 2008 by an arsonist. It is currently undergoing restoration in a fashion that bears testament to what I believe is the Korean national specialty: storing information. Mercifully, there are 182 pages of blueprints on file for Namdaemun, and the restoration will not significantly differ from the 600 year old original. What an astonishing mania the Koreans have for information, and in this case, what a miracle. If Monticello was burnt down, do the Americans have diagrams of every last shingle? Likely not.

Seokkuram (석굴암) Grotto

I used to be quite a happy person, especially as a child. I developed a reputation for wearing a shit-eating grin everywhere I went, always whistling cheerfully. In my recent adulthood, I was not perceived that same way, and rightfully so. Happy was not on my list of key descriptors, and I had forgotten that is ever was.

I have remembered that now. People have started asking, "Why are you always so happy?" the way they once did. I whistle in the hallways. I sing in the shower. Every day, I exaggerate not, I am visited by the thought, "This is the most beautiful moment there has ever been, and tomorrow there will be even another."

So it is without hyperbole or surprise that I tell you, yesterday's visit to the Seokkuram Grotto was the most beautiful moment there has ever been (hereafter MBMTHEB). This picture was not taken by me, but it is better than the one I took:
The first MBMTHEB I had on the trip struck on the path to the grotto. The fog hung low on the bamboo, and the city of Kyeongju was completely obscured. It was as though we walked from the parking lot into a Korean Brigadoon, an ancient Silla stronghold that reappeared every hundred years, accessible only through this foggy portal. Ascending the mountain, looking down into the ridges brimming with dense, creamy fog, I was transported inwardly into a tearful state of bliss. Had there ever in history been something so lovely, so celestial? It was as though we were at the edge of a painting, with only blank canvas in front of us, waiting for Bob Ross to come back and paint in the rest of the trees.

But, as has been the case with every moment since arriving in Korea, this was promptly outshined by the interior of the grotto itself. Even taken from a purely artistic standpoint, the lines of this manmade cave are sublime. The statue itself is only one element in an artistically unified structure. One could discourse for hours upon the many symmetries of the grotto, the engineering feat that it represents, but the experience transcends explanation.

Exiting the grotto, there is a little stall where one can purchase a broad, curved roofing tile. On it one can write a prayer (or in the case of one boorish coworker "Mox Wuz Here!!!), and it will then be used to reroof a temple. I subscribed to this sentiment, and here is a picture of my prayer:It was then that I had my second MBMTHEB of the day. This one had no particular words or ideas attached to it, but I retired to a hidden corner and wept while I heard in the background people searching for me, wanting to take a group picture. I stayed hidden, for this was a solitary time.

The third MBMTHEB happened on the path back, leaving Brigadoon, planning to return with my family in a few months. An old broad of whom I have grown quite fond, walked with me, and we talked about how happy we are here. I related to her my experience of transcendence, and it returned, as though its ears were burning, and it wanted to hear what was being said about it. The very mention of the MBMTHEB precipitated a metamoment, a moment about moments. Has there ever been anything so beautiful?

This reverie has been brought to you courtesy of Korean National Treasure #24.

Donghwasa Temple

While not as huge and elaborate as Bulgoksa, and while not home to as many or as iconic National Treasures, Donghwasa was in some ways even more impressive. For one thing, it is actually functioning as a temple; monks are everywhere, seemingly heedless of the tourism, going about the business of monking. As I crossed the path of one, he stopped and pressed something into my hand. It was a little rice cake, brown in color, with nuts in it. He didn't say anything; he gave me the gift and walked briskly on. At least I hope it was a rice cake. What a beautiful experience. The feeling of serenity and power that I felt at Bulgoksa was more potent here, possibly due, not to the location, but to my frame of mind. At one point on a simple stone bridge, I was moved to tears.

Which emotion is in contrast to the awe I felt at turning the corner and seeing this:


The Tongil Daegu is one of the largest Buddhas in the world: 33 meters tall. It is not of particular historical import (it was only built in 1992), but is possible more significant for that reason. This Buddha is not an historical artefact; it is a tool in daily use by the monks of the Donghwasa area to focus their peaceful energies and spread them throughout the country. This particular Buddha represents unification, and the prayers that are constantly being focused through it are specifically for reunification with North Korea-not only a beautiful statue, but a beautiful sentiment. This speaks to what in general made Donghwasa more meaningful for me than Bulgoksa: it is real, active Buddhism, not Disneyland.

The tourist in me was altogher forgotten, though. Here's a picture of what the placard claims is Korean National Treasure no. 253, although it does not appear to be on the official list, which would make me irrationally irritated, if true.

That's right, a pair of stone flagpoles.

KSCPP: Fifty Wonders of Korea

Given that the source of this book is The Korean Spirit and Culture Promotion Project, I suppose I should not be surprised that it is entirely lacking in objectivity. The title itself should serve as a caveat emptor. The the volume is so effusive in its praise that it almost feels like it came out of the DPRK, not the ROK. In spite of this, I found the descriptions of certain Korean achievements not only interesting, but breathtaking. I shall no doubt have more to say as I see them in person, but suffice it to say that the slightly less than glorious wonders from my previous post are not on the list in this book. Rather, such things as the Korean alphabet (a wonder indeed, and one of my reasons in choosing Korea as a destination), and the invention of movable metal type--200 years before Gutenberg--deserve the praise, overboard though it goes.

For, while the Korean are good at nearly everything, they are only the best at one thing: recording information. Even the flagship of the Korean economy, Samsung, is only the best at creating memory chips. Their laptops, including and expecially the one on which I am now writing, are brokeass pieces of horseshit. But I digress. The Korean tradition of record-keeping goes back for millennia, at least as far as the Silla dynasty, but it is three elements from the Choson period (1392-1910) that propel them into the lead. The first, and in my mind most impressive item, is the Sillok, the Royal Annals of the Choson dynasty. Get a load of this: the official historian followed the King around everywhere, and recorded his every word, his every move. For five hundred years. Not only were these records meticulous--a total of 1,893 volumes--but they were completely forthright. The king wasn't even allowed to look at the records; nobody but the historians ever even saw them during the dynasty. They were there purely for the sake of posterity. Think how marvelous such a tool would be in any modern government. Every move that the President or Premier or whatever made recorded, every conversation transcribed. How much better than any ethics committee or judicial review. A veritable panacaea. My admiration for this achievement surpasses my admiration for all the architecture in the world put together.

In conjunction with this work are the Diaries of the Royal Secretariat and the Uigwe. The former is a more public, and more comprehensive version of the Sillok. It was kept by the King's staff, so it was not truly objective, but it covered far more than just the King's activities: weather, the goings-on of other officials, etc. The latter, the Uigwe, was a record of all the ceremonies and ceremonial buildings of the Dynasty, from the number of flute players to the stitching on the ceremonial garb. Every brick was documented, which made the reconstruction of certain iconic buildings destroyed during the various Japanese invasions a simple matter. Taken together, these three chronicles constitute by far the most comprehensive, objective, and congruous historical catalog anywhere in the world. Think of the questions surrounding American history, even as recent as fifty years ago. By way of contrast, there is enough information to keep Korean scholars busy for generations upon generations. It would be mathematically impossible to even read a significant portion of this body of work in a lifetime, let alone give it any sort of scholarly treatment.

If I rave a bit about these achievements, it is only because they play to my personal taste for language and information. While art and music are lovely, no single work or body of work has ever blown my mind the way the existence of these works have, and I haven't even seen them yet. It is a pity for the Japanese that the Korean memory is so powerful, for there are plenty of things which they would rather were forgotten . . .

Cheomseongdae and Bulguksa Temple

Korean culture is obsessed with the idea of kibun, often translated "dignity" or "face". This is true for individuals, but especially with the Country as a whole. Koreans are determined to be seen by the rest of the world as the greates, oldest, most advanced, or otherwise best civilization on the planet. Notice that they are not actually interested in being the greatest civilization; they are primarily interested in being seen thusly. Part of this is reflected in their near propagandizing of national features, works of art, or even native traditions. We were treated yesterday to a presentation by a Korean cultural organization about how marvelous Korea is. Of course, they are right to be proud of such things as the Sokkuram grotto, and other marvelous feats of the Silla empire. They go overboard, however. We watched a very slick, professional, ten-minute video, detailed how every stone of the grotto was placed, and how great an achievement this was: making a not-so-subtle point of how superior it is to similar grottos in India or China. It was prefectly convincing, and everyone was left awestruck. After the fifth such video, though, it began to feel a bit too earnest, almost like advertising. The zenith of their hubris came with a video about how Samsung electronics are the best in the world. This was laughable, because each of us was given a Samsung laptop to use, and they are the shittiest shit that ever shat shit.

In the same spirit of Kibun, the Korean government has compiled a list of National Treasures, architectural or artistic wonders that make Korea the best ever at everything. At first I felt like this was hugely convenient to the tourist. I could simply look at the list and start working my way through it. What I didn't realize was that, in the Korean mind, every pebble in Korea is the best pebble in the world.


So the wonders that I crossed off my list are not as impressive as I thought they would be. To begin with, I went to Choemseongdae, a 7th century observatory from the Silla empireand Korean National Treasure #31.




What is impressive about Cheomseongdae is not it's appearance or architectual majesty. It looks rather like an inflated kiln, and is not beautiful. Rather, what is most impressive about the ancient observatory is the stories behind it. Queen Seondeok, the first Korean Queen and the force behind the observatory, is a fascinating figure. She is the Solomon of Korean history, scientifically minded, analytical, and naturally curious. There is a story about her discerning from a picture of Peonies that it was a pity they had no smell. When the seeds were planted and the flowers indeed had no smell, she was asked by her advisors how she knew. She answered that there were no butterflies in the picture. A flawed answer, to be sure, but a marvelous story.


After Cheosongdae, I went to Bulguksa temple. Here the aroma of Kibun was even stronger. There are at least eight here, including these four:

That's right, there are four National Treasures in this picture, not counting me. The beautiful pagodas? No the pagodas are not even authentic. They were rebuilt on the foundation of the old temple in 1966 in an obvious act of Kibun. No, the steps are the National Treasure. Each flight of stairs is a separate entity: The two in the background are Cheongungyo and Baegungyo (national treasure #23), and those in the foreground are Yeonhwagyo and Chilbogyo (#24). What makes these staircases so special? I have no idea. They are unremarkable, but clearly quite old and symbolic. If the United States had designated some old stone steps a National Treasure, Americans would go into fits of laughter.

That said, there is one treasure at Bulgoksa that I found interesting:

This is Dabotap Pagoda (#20). What is interesting about this pagoda is not only that it is made out of granite, a notoriously uncarveable stone, especially this intricately. Rather, its interest lies in the fact that it is utterly unlike any other pagoda in Korea (That I know of, at least). The flatness and angularity of it seemingly lack the grace of other pagodas, and the four stone pillars especially seem to detract from the overall effect, but this is beautifully reflective of a story in the Lotus Sutra, of two different Buddhas facing each other: daeboyeorae and seokgayeorae. Dabotap faces Seoktap (of which I did not get a good picture due to lighting, but is KNT #21), to reflect the story, and nothing could be clearer. Dabotap is as different from the more traditional Seoktap as could be. Yet they face each other silently and without arguing for eternity.

Of the other two National Treasures I saw on this trip it was not permitted to take pictures, but it is just as well. They are two seated Buddhas, Vairocana and Amitabha, KNT #26 and 27, but as the temple was only recently reconstructed, the statues could not possible be very old, and are probably duplicates. There is no mention of it, even on the internet, but I find it difficult to believe that the statues are actually the original ones from the 9th century, since the entire thing was burned down in the 16th century. By way of contrast, I find it easy to believe that the Korean government created replicas and simply does not mention their inauthenticity. Who builds a statue and immediately declares it a national treasure, of great cultural import? Who does that? A little fellow named Kibun.

Michael J. Seth: A Concise History of Korea: From the Neolithic Period through the Nineteenth Century

Allow me to just say that my Aunt Nell is one of the most thoughtful gift-givers I know.

This book was delivered at the perfect time for it (as you may not know, I moved to South Korea this week). Sadly, although well written, it reminded me why I so rarely read non-fiction books. Invariably, I read and promptly forget all but the basic information, information I could just have easily gotten in thirty seconds on Wikipedia. What hadn't occured to me before this, however, was what cognitive processes are behind my preference for fiction.

As a teacher, I am well attuned to the symptoms of cognitive style in students, but I had never bothered to apply that knowledge to myself. I knew on a cognitive level that I was a kinisthetic learner, but that information did me little good, limited as it was to the cognitive sphere. While reading this book, I finally put two and two together. Me reading non-fiction is a fish out of water. Non-fiction is a very auditory experience, words and only words. It must be, therefore, that this is why Robert only reads non-fiction. From a pedagogical standpoint, this is an amazing discovery. I had never read anywhere of a distinction for genre by cognitive style.

The bad news is that I didn't get a lot out of the book itself--certainly not the hours I invested in it. The good news is that I have had a pedagogical epiphany: I could easily assign a fiction story to visual/kinesthetic students, and a non-fiction one to auditory ones as part of an assignment. It sounds too simple to be true, yet I'm sure there's something to it.